Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with LuckyTxGuy that 2+2 tends to be anti-Christian. There is a certain kind of hate associated with those tendencies that really upsets me.

[/ QUOTE ]

We oppose those who would take our freedoms. Most Christians do not oppose allowing others to gamble, so our issue is with the small minority of Christians who would. I think we're pro-Christian and anti-statist, myself.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with LuckyTxGuy that 2+2 tends to be anti-Christian. There is a certain kind of hate associated with those tendencies that really upsets me.

[/ QUOTE ]

We oppose those who would take our freedoms. Most Christians do not oppose allowing others to gamble, so our issue is with the small minority of Christians who would. I think we're pro-Christian and anti-statist, myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those in the legislation forum are much more reasonable, in my opinion. Go wander over to OOT, politics, or science math and philosophy. Sklansky himself offered a bet of $50,000 that a Christian couldn't best him on the math GRE and pass a lie detector test discerning whether he/she is a Christian. I would have taken that bet if I had $50,000 lying around and finishing time was a tie breaker. His whole point was (obviously) to "prove" that Christians are stupid and/or liars.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with LuckyTxGuy that 2+2 tends to be anti-Christian. There is a certain kind of hate associated with those tendencies that really upsets me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I for one am not anti-Christian. The constitution gives you the freedom to practice your religion and I would fight anyone who tried to take that right away from you.

Certain Christians, however, want to use the power of government to require the rest of us to live according to their interpretation of scripture. The constitution forbids that, and it is that faction that I oppose.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

Alright. Enough!

Let's get this thread back on track discussing Fred Thompson's views on poker. If guys want to argue the founding of America vis-a-vis FOF and Thomas Jefferson or anything non-Thompson related, please take it to politics........

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with LuckyTxGuy that 2+2 tends to be anti-Christian. There is a certain kind of hate associated with those tendencies that really upsets me.

[/ QUOTE ]/quote]

I think Skillgram's and the other replies to this and similiar comments speak to my issue with christians and, I suspect, a large number of people. But I'm going to expand on their thoughts a bit.

Most of my life I lived in Utah and was raised as a member of the predominant religion there. Needless to say members of that denomination had a lot of clout in state politics. This is one of the reasons I choose not to live there anymore. My comments here are based on my observations having come from that background.

Others have spoken about the tendency of certain groups to attempt to legislate their beliefs. When this is done to prevent gross infringements on the rights of others it is reasonable and good.

But in any group there are a percentage of zealots who go too far. They think (as someone else has said) that everyone should be forced to believe as they do or, since you can't be forced to believe, at least forced to live by those beliefs. This problem is exacerbated when one of the zealots has a leadership role in the group because of the tendency to blindly follow those leaders. (I can't begin to count the number of times I've heard "the thinking has already been done for us.) I believe most people in these groups are good people who wouldn't want to negatively infringe on your life anymore than they would want you to infringe on their's (they try to live by the golden rule).

But rather than speak up if they believe their leaders are overstepping in some area they remain silent. They don't actively promote what they don't believe, but they don't speak out either. We could call them the "silent majority." Thus those with a different view are left believing that all the people in the group believe the same thing on an issue. Their complicity results in getting painted with the same brush as the more vocal part of the group.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Alright. Enough!

Let's get this thread back on track discussing Fred Thompson's views on poker. If guys want to argue the founding of America vis-a-vis FOF and Thomas Jefferson or anything non-Thompson related, please take it to politics........

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree things have gotten a little far afield, this discussion is related to Fred Thompson: in order to win the Rep. nomination he will have to convince the FOF contingent of the party to support him. He does not get much support anywhere else, because he has never really done anything politically - but he has always talked a good "social conservative" game. Thats why he is showing up in the polls. Since he cannot afford to alienate these people, I would be shocked to see him ever say anything favorable about poker players. I hope I am wrong about that and that Al D'Amato is onto something we dont know. But I doubt that I am wrong. And the FOF vision of American History and how it should reflect "christian" values is the problem here, if Thompson rejects that and goes for the real tradition of American liberty, he will not get those votes.

Skallagrim

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

Fred Thompson: The reason why I and many others won't vote for him.

Tows the party line when it comes to exhorborant Republican spending.

Cosponsored McCain-Feingold

Liberals love him, even editors of the Washington Post.

Fred Thompson does talk a good talk in front of the camera, but his voting record is exactly opposite of conservative values.

Now if only there was a candidate that was pro-unlegislated internet, and pro-smaller government...

Oh yeah! RON PAUL

VOTE RON PAUL

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Alright. Enough!

Let's get this thread back on track discussing Fred Thompson's views on poker. If guys want to argue the founding of America vis-a-vis FOF and Thomas Jefferson or anything non-Thompson related, please take it to politics........

[/ QUOTE ]

And with respect to that: I know that this is the 'net, and anybody can make any claim that they want--howver, at the risk of getting flamed, I'm gonna state this anyway: I lived in NY when Al D'Amato was a Senator, and still do to this day. My brother knew him fairly well when he was in office; more recently, I've come to know him as well, and occasionally play in a private game with him.

He's been talking up Thompson for awhile in our game--but I think that Al's endorsements or political prognostications are the "kiss of death". Perfect example of this: Back in the summer of 1992, when Bush (41) was seeking reelection and clearly in trouble from the double threat of Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, Al was running around telling everybody he knew that Dan Quayle would be dropped from the ticket as Bush's running mate, that this would shake up the campaign and get things back on track for Bush, etc.

Turned out it was just another one of these inside-the-Beltway whispering games, attempting to get so many people to believe the rumor, that it would create an air of inevitability, forcing it to become reality. Nice attempt at a bluff by Al, but no way it was going to happen.

I'd lay big odds against Thompson being the GOP's nominee for '08--I think this is another case of wishful thinking on Al's part.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

I think its Giuliani's to lose as he has the most consistent slice of the GOP primary voters. I've said before I think Huckabee and Brownback will fight till the end to keep Romney(who they view as a fake and a devil-worshipper) from winning. If they keep half the ChristaNazis on their side, and Giuliani doesn't melt down its his. Pragmatic Hillary haters know he is the only one who can beat her in the known field. Im not sure theres a sitting Gov ro Sen who could shake up the national electorate enough to matter. We've culled talent out of the political system, and this year will be the fruit of that. Thompson for or against poker won't matter UNLESS he somehow breaks with the field and has an original thought and appealing platform. Oh, and his wife lets him choose his own side dish at dinner.

Re: Fred Thompson for Poker?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Liberals love him, even editors of the Washington Post.
Fred Thompson does talk a good talk in front of the camera, but his voting record is exactly opposite of conservative values.[ QUOTE ]



These are the things that would let him win a general election but in all likely hood will prevent him winning the GOP nomination.

One thing though, all the GOP best choices exhibt many of the same problems for the 'base' of the GOP and i think they (the base) do not have the votes to nominate Brownback / Huckabee though enough pull to perhaps get one of the two a VP slot.

Rudy, I don't know.....Yes, his to lose but I have faith in him.

obg